Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climb Online (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I am happy to draft/Userfy upon request. kelapstick(bainuu) 05:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Climb Online
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article does not have independent sources to establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 07:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 07:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: The company has notability:
 * The Daily Telegraph - Is the Apprentice winner doomed to fail?
 * Daily Mail - Lord Sugar gets it wrong hiring Wright: The old fashioned virtues of tights lose out to the internet in the final of The Apprentice
 * These are major British newspaper with significant coverage. The article definitely needs work though. --Sbwoodside (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. The Apprentice UK winner set this company up, it is just a marketing agency with little sales. Maybe one day it will be a notable company, but probably not, and now not even remotely notable. There are a few refs related to the apprentice as expected. Already deleted once, nothing has changed from what I can tell. Szzuk (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 19:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for now at best and draft and userfy if actually needed as none of this suggests solid independent notability for a better notable and acceptable article yet. Notifying past AfD users, and .  SwisterTwister   talk  06:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: At the point of the previous Afd at the end of January, the website had not yet been converted from concerning climbing to that of the SEO firm, so I suppose the previous argument doesn't stand. However, what is noted with the Keep opinion above is some coverage relating specifically to the winning of a reality TV show in December 2014 - which can be discounted as notability is not inherited into that of a subsequent company venture. (All of that is best placed with The Apprentice (UK series ten), if at all.) The article itself is referenced to one subsequent online posting by the company founder (WP:PRIMARY) and an online interview with the same person, about his life since winning the contest. What I am not finding is reliable in depth coverage of the firm itself, as is required for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.